Dawn of the dead

User45701

It came out last nite what di u all think of it?

I thought it was very funny and well worth the watch, looking forward to shawn

lodgepole

I thought it was brilliant, though I didn't like the additional hand held footage at the end.

Funky

What a film... think i'll have to see it in the cinema before i can tell whether it was better than 28 Days Later or not though

Agent Orange

Originally posted by User45701
I thought it was very funny

What are you, psychotic?

UnrealQueen

It was very funny, which was very disappointing coz i went into thinking it was a horror.

User45701

Originally posted by Agent Orange
What are you, psychotic?

I spent the entire movie laughing and i couldent stop

When that fat zombie womman ran tward him and got the poker in the eye and the zombie baby i couldent stop laughing, i was hopeing the baby would burst through her stomach and latch onto someones face (cough aliens)

VERY funny movie

BoB_BoT

I enjoyed it and thought the footage at the end was good, it's nice to know that there was a happy ending
Although the opening left me feeling a bit queezy, but I think that was because I was sick , I did laugh at a lot of it hehe

Tusky

thanks alot bob , use spoilers ffs

Mr E

What did he spoil? Nothing....

Funny movie, very gory in places. Loved the humour - especially celebrity sniper, and the musak (Don't worry, be happy!)

(Oops... did I give away part of the soundtrack? :rolleyes::p)

Best horror movie I've seen in the cinema for a long time....

- Dave.

valor

that was an excellent excellent movie. zombies rock

Raggamuffin

absolutly terrible...

it actually had no point to it..

why remake a perfectly good film... oh wait they have to stupify it for the general public.


fuc.king s.hit.. really wish i'd not gone to see it

Creature

Pretty damn excellent.

While I agree that there was a lot of humour used in the film I didn't think it was overused or overshadowed the grizzly theme of the film. The violence and gore was great too. There were enough headshots and frenzied bitings to appease me .

Also I must say I'm starting to like the idea of running zombies. Don't think the film would've worked quite so well if they were the classic slow zombies.


Finally could someone tell me how a fat zombie woman is funny? Or am I just lacking a sense of humour?

lodgepole

The reason they remade a perfectly good film instead of making an original is that no studio is going to bankroll a big budget zombie movie without having a guarantee that it's going to make money. Name recognition makes money. The success of 28 Days Later in the US made the idea plausible again, but not so much that they'd trust an unknown story with that kind of money.

As a fan of the genre, and having seen pretty much every zombie/cannibal/undead movie worth seeing, i'm delighted that the film was made and more importantly, that it's making money. I don't see how any fan could think any different... You have to remember that Romero's trilogy was almost completely unique in the horror genre in terms of the underlying messages the films held. Most of the others were carbon copies of the last film that had success... What they had in common was that they were fun and that they were gorey. Therein lies the fun...

Agent Orange

I thought the bit with the

baby

was very, very grim. Maybe in your perverted little mind it was funny, but personally I don't find

a baby being shot

particularly humourous.

Lex_Diamonds

Classic remake, really loved it. Controversial to say, but I think it shades past the original. So many funny, gripping moments. They even gave homage to the A-Team ffs!
Oh and a subtle one to Fulci's "Zombi".

Only thing i really missed in the remake was the music by Goblin.

lodgepole

Originally posted by Lex_Diamonds
Only thing i really missed in the remake was the music my Goblin.

The cornerstone of any good gore movie...

Kevok

Good film, but you will laugh, not that the funny things are actually 'funny' but just the way they're presented to you you can't help it.

As said above, gory at parts.

The chainsaw part, although I saw it coming a mile away was really gruesome, couldn't help but squirm.

Beginning was excellent.

Fysh

I thought it was great. The audience I saw it with seemed to find a lot of stuff funny that wasn't (not particularly gory moments or anything, but just stuff that I personally didn't rate worthy of laughing at), but it did a good job of not sacrificing the grimy horror of the storyline for cheap jokes. That said...

I didn't find the bit with the baby funny at all, personally (well, aside from the build up to the birth where facehugger comparisons couldn't be avoided). Worryingly, some people found it hysterical.

.

Probably the best opening fifteen minutes I've ever seen in a zombie film, outdoing even 28 Days Later and the whole deserted London thing by being the first film that has the budget to show the epidemic nature of the zombie "disease". The news clips weren't really necessary to the story, but they did a great deal for the atmosphere.

I don't see how any horror fan other than the elitist group could not be keen on this film, in that while it's obviously not a totally serious horror film, its success will make it easier for other horror flicks that aren't crappy slasher attempts to get bankrolled. Given recent horror outings (let's see...Wrong Turn, Jeepers Crappers 1 & 2, Freddy Vs Jason, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake...do I really need to carry on?) this can only be a good thing.

BlitzKrieg

i enjoyed the film


BUT



one thing confused me it had nothing to do with the story so i dont need spoilers. At the very start of the credits just when the music kicks in the first news style shot your shown is a group of people who seem to be praying in a mosque. That single image has been stuck in my head since i've seen the film and i cant place why the film-makers chose that particular shot. Esp. with the current political atmosphere. I mean it wasnt taken up in later shots with a zombie bursting in on them or anything it just appears then disapears and you get the news report shots from then on...

Lex_Diamonds

Well, in the scenes with the news reporter it can clearly be seen that it is in the middle east, a mosque or similar type building is visible in the background.

I also heard a rumour that the script originally had Iraq as the source of the outbreak, bio agent gone astray type of deal. Glad this wasnt in the final version.

I personally didnt have a problem with that shot you speak of though, it just served to show the international nature of the zombie plauge.

Raggamuffin

i think what your problem is that it did'nt have a story...

basically it did'nt make sense...

how did the zombies get infected?
WHERE did it come from?
HOW are they dealing with it?

personally the remake is like a poor attempt to get in on the popularity of 28 days later. which is after all fantastic.

Oh yeah Zombies can't run. They're dead.

although people infected with rage CAN run... now thats a nice way of getting around the zombie = slow thingie.

Oh yeah the acting was piss poor too... absolutley pointless film

Mr E

Ah the youth of today... the need for everything to be wrapped up in a nice little package.

Part of the terror of the movie was it just happened. No rational explanation... its like the preacher that was interviewed during the credits....

When hell is full, the dead will walk the earth.

I think its more fun to wonder....

was it bioterrorism? A plague? God?

The fact is that its still a bloody good movie.... You shouldn't have to have everything spoonfed to you. Use your imagination.

Giblet

Originally posted by Raggamuffin

Oh yeah Zombies can't run. They're dead.

Your logic is flawed to say the least.

Also did you ever watch the original film, not exactly filled with plot is it.

Nope I went to see a ZOMBIE film with lots of grusome killings and characters who deserve to die, and thats what I got.

Jesus Christ I don't know what you people expect.

shotamoose

So what kind of fuel are zombies running on, anyway? If they don't eat for long enough do they (re)die? Do they ever need to sit down and take a break?

satchmo

Do they need to pee? How do they reproduce? Why don't they eat each other? What if....

IT DOESNT MATTER!!! They're ZOMBIES for ****s sake! They eat people! It's scary!

Brilliant movie, best zombie flick I've seen in ages... blows 28 Days Later out of the water imo.

Raggamuffin

better than 28 days later..... HAHAHA

I mean seriously i don't want to be spoonfed but i do like a plot... a point...
a reason....

I mean anbody can make a zombie flick with lots of killings... but this one is pointless...

28 days later is a fantastic movie from start to finish.
28 days later goes somewhere... i mean there is reason why the chracters are doing something.

The finale in 28 days later is just mind blowing...

In my opinion if you prefer this **** film over such an obviously superior one you're an idiot.

And 28 days later is'nt a zombie flick.


OH and this film itself lacked imagination i mean it's a remake for christs sake.


This is just another stupid film with seems to be praised by stupid people.
Anyway i'm off to remake a zombie movie.

lodgepole

It sounds like you're looking for completely the wrong things out of this film. As you said, 28 Days Later wasn't a Zombie movie. As such it's completely irrelevant to make note of its plot nuances and ending when talking about how good or bad the Dawn of the Dead remake is.

Giblet

Yes it's a remake, but it's really really really really different.

The supermarket and the odd nod here and there are all that survives.


Oh if you want the reasons and the plot etc, watch Night of the Living dead, although you won't find much.

Pretty much you're supposed to be as clueless as the people in the film. Kinda the whole POINT.

28 days later was boring and the ending was a bit over the top.

satchmo

Originally posted by Raggamuffin
In my opinion if you prefer this **** film over such an obviously superior one you're an idiot.

Heheh this coming from the same person that said "Oh yeah Zombies can't run. They're dead.".... :rolleyes:

I think you need a little practise in the old debating area... come back when you've something intelligent to add.
(Handy tip: calling people "stupid" and "idiots" doesn't count as an argument)

Tusky

Really really liked it loveed the fact that they didnt shy off using massive ammounts of gore , best opening few minutes ive seen in along time. Zombies looked great , 1000 times beter than the "CGI" zombies in resident evil.

Does justice to the original.

LoLth

"zombies can't run, they're dead"

WTF??? You are questioning the fact that a zombie can run but you have no problems believing that a corpse can get up, develope an appetite for the meat of it's own species, see it's prey (oh, and hear)... suspension of disbelief I think it is called. methinks you are nit picking because the film you hold as favourite ahs just been equalled or surpassed.

As for a remake, I have no problems with remakes as long as they are done well. Compare this remake to say.. planet of the apes. Does it look better now?

worst (as in the part that left the biggest impression) part of the film for me was

the little girl in the beginning. the whole way she jumped up was just freaky and the wound that looked like someone bit her lips off was sickening

Loved the film. Laughed at the funny bits, jumped at the jumpy bits. As far as I am concerned the film did what it was intended to do. it Entertained.


By the way, if anything a zombie should be able to run faster than a living person as they are unnaffected by muscle fatigue or the build up of lactic acid. They would also be incredibly strong , not feeling the pain a living person would feel from over exertion

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Raggamuffin
i think what your problem is that it did'nt have a story...

basically it did'nt make sense...

how did the zombies get infected?
WHERE did it come from?
HOW are they dealing with it?

None of these questions are really dealt with in any of the original trilogy, because an answer to these questions would ruin the sense of blind terror the characters are facing.

Originally posted by Raggamuffin
Oh yeah Zombies can't run. They're dead.

The "freshly dead" can. It makes sense - they've just been infected with whatever it is, so decomposition and rigor mortis haven't set it.

Originally posted by Raggamuffin
although people infected with rage CAN run...

I love the way you bring up all of these problems with the logic of the film and the way they don't explain anything.. but then show a complete willingness to accept that people can be infected with "rage". You rule, guy.

lamda

First of all I find it hilarious that you are debating the finer points on zombie biology....

Anyway, I am genuinely surprised that so many people really liked this film.
The most important thing in a horror film is that it scares the crap out of you. This is basically what you're looking for in the genre. The truly great horror films usually offer something more than this; for example the original Dawn of the Dead with its critique on consumerism, BUT the main thing is that you're scared out of your mind.
I don't really have a problem with the fact that it's a remake (albeit a loose one), I didn't go expecting originality but I did hope for a fright here and there. This film was so unbelievably boring I didn't even get that. Not one frightening part in the whole thing! I really am amazed that people are saying it was at all scary... even in a packed screen that I saw it in there was absolutely NO audience reaction and I couldn't believe hearing people on the way out saying that it was great...
Gore without frights - I should have just gone to see Christ being tortured if that was what I wanted to see.
Actually Cat in the Hat is probably scarier.

imp

Gotta say, I really loved Johnny Cash for the opening credits.

Film itself was great, but only in the sense that its tremendous fun.

}:>

lodgepole

Originally posted by lamda
The most important thing in a horror film is that it scares the crap out of you. This is basically what you're looking for in the genre. The truly great horror films usually offer something more than this; for example the original Dawn of the Dead with its critique on consumerism, BUT the main thing is that you're scared out of your mind.

I agree, but I think that Zombie movies tend to fit into a different category. Instead of being scared, the intention is really to disgust. Night of the Living Dead was a scary movie, but Dawn of the Dead relied a lot more on the make up effects to unsettle you.

ixoy

Gotta say I really enjoyed it - lots and lots of fun and some great zippy action sequences. It's the movie that 28 Days Later wished it was. 28 Days Later is over-rated, although I'm almost on the point of changing my mind due to raggamuffin's superior debating skills on the issue

TCamen

Saw it yesterday & again today. I really enjoyed it

Definitely one of the finer modern horror movies I've seen in ages. This is the zombie movie I wanted when I went to see '28 Days Later', i.e keeping the zombies central at all times, rather than going off on a tangent with idiotic army men :rolleyes:


Most of the people I've talked to didn't have a clue it was a remake, so I don't think the borrowing of ideas & title can really be used to discredit the movie's achievements. It was a new original take on the premise, and it pleased me.
'Dawn of the Dead' hooked me in those first pre-credits minutes & never let up. It was a fun,gory, thrill ride with some scares thrown in. Can't ask for more than that.

Roll on 'Day of the Dead' remake :cool:

LoGiE

Loved this film. A good mix of gore with plenty of laughs thrown in. The soundtrack for instance:) The first 10 mins in particular are very good.

Fysh

I think it's absolutely hilarious that people have gone to see an unashamedly mainstream and blockbuster-style zombie movie and somehow managed to delude themselves into thinking that they were going to get finely-tuned psychological horror. I don't get it. I mean, do the trailers make it *look* like Audition or Tesis, or whatever you want to suggest as an example? Personally, I really *liked* the fact that this film avoided what so many go for and didn't bother using audiovisual shock as a way of pretending that you've been scared. I mean, anyone will jump when you make stuff flash up in front of them and blare loud noises in their ears. It doesn't mean they're actually scared of what you show them.

Lhe lack of plot is only whined about by those who don't *get* the point. It's not about why the zombies are there or how they work or whatever. Those are details, and while they might help in the suspension of disbelief, the whole point of the film is to try and convey the experience of what it would be like to be in the middle of this whole apocaliptic scenario, from the faded sound and shellshocked camera style at the beginning when whatsername is driving around in the morning to the nastily graphic visuals on the violence to the black humour the characters use to try and deal with their situation. It surpasses the problem loads of slasher flicks have of trying far too hard to convince you that something could feasibly happen by instead focusing on what it would be like being in the position where nobody has any answers and a rational outlook just won't work.

Like many great horror films, the central premise is how people would cope if the world suddenly stopped working.

If you don't like that, then fine, go and watch 28 Days Later again. I enjoyed it when I saw it in the cinema, and though that some aspects of it were very good (it had a similar character approach although to a lesser extent) but the details as to how the infection worked felt forced and not really necessary (and random people seemed to know an awful lot about how it worked, considering how much time had actually passed). The ending was dire as well, only just better than "and then she woke up and it was all a dream". But anywa. The idea of you sitting in your room watching 28 days later on loop, jacking off constantly, is certainly preferable to the idea of you coming on here, whining about a bunch of things which you are only too eager to forgive in another similar film and calling anyone who disagrees with you an idiot. It'd certainly save people like me having to write the above explanation as to how you missed the point of the film. Still, at least you proved me right about the horror elitists. Just goes to show....

ObeyGiant

I'd just like to point out that Fysh is my new favourite boardster.

Raggamuffin

um yeah just becaus ei'm too lazy to debate properly does'nt take away from it being a **** film.

As for masturbating and 28 days later... i mean now that's a bit scary.


I guess this film is just reinforcing zombie clichés.

I do actually find it funny that i somehow annoy you to the point of trying to prove your point. Touching...

Panda

All i know is that the reputable people of "The Star" gave it four out of five stars recently.

I'm Sold!

Joking aside tho, the original was one of my favourites if not my favourite zombie movie ever.

I havnt seen it yet so,
Do ye think they did it justice?
Did they change the "plot" much?

from what i saw they changed a good bit but the main characters are still there.

do the bikers still come and whoop ass?

Agent Orange

No they don't, but Tom Savini has a cameo as a policeman getting interviewed on telly.

The only thing the film has in common with the original is the mall and the zombies. That's it.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Agent Orange
No they don't, but Tom Savini has a cameo as a policeman getting interviewed on telly.

Ken Foree also pops up as the preacher on TV who gets to say "When there's no more room in Hell...".
And Scott Reiniger has a cameo as the General in one of the TV spots, too.

koneko

Originally posted by Raggamuffin
I guess this film is just reinforcing zombie clichés.

And what on earth were you expecting? The Age Of Innocence Zombies? Ninja zombies? What.. exactly?
Take it for what it is, zombie flick. They're better when they don't try to explain why people became zombies. Like ObeyGiant said the original trilogy didn't and you can't slate them.

I really enjoyed it, thought it was great. The effects/make-up was great, great zombies, I had a giddy schoolgirl moment when Tom Savini and Ken Foree were onscreen. I still prefer the original, but as remakes go I thought it was pretty darn good.

Really looking forward to Shaun of the Dead.

Fysh

To put it bluntly, Ragamuffin, Dawn of The Dead and 28 Days Later have more in common than just running zombies. They have an unexplained yet widespread disease/plague/whatever, vague details as to its origins, and a cast of characters trying desperately to survive in conditions that our dayd-to-day life would consider unthinkable. They even have several similar characters (

the girl who loses her father after the trauma of previously losing her mother, the ballsy girl who is very upfront about how happily she'll shoot someone if she knows they're going to turn

) and a couple of shared specifcs (

the military base that turns out not to be a safe haven, the possibility of islands being safe from the infection, the air force reconnaisance

).

The main difference is that Dawn... has more tongue-in-cheek moments and has the characters actually making jokes with each other as an attempt to deal with their situation (

the arrogant sarcastic git who seems incapable of talking to people without taking the piss out of them

).

Bearing this in mind, as well as your under-par attempts to make any other points than simply stating your opinion (am I supposed to respect it so much that I don't need any arguments to back it up?), I can only conclude your main objection to this film is that other people like it, thereby removing any l33t horrorfan cred you might get from actually enthusing about it.

bandit

It wasnt a great film but definatley an enjoyable one. The gore was great and the opening 15 mins were brilliant. My two main problems were

1\

The impact of the scene where the infected dad had to be killed was ruined by being followed the ridicoulus country and western song montage

really didnt like that it spoiled the tension imho

2\

The character of TJ, at the start he's an arse-hole who doesnt care about anyone only his own survival and for no apparent reason turnms out to be a martyr risking giving his own life so the others can live

sutty

Originally posted by imp
Gotta say, I really loved Johnny Cash for the opening credits.

Film itself was great, but only in the sense that its tremendous fun.

}:>

couldn't have put it better my-self!

Bacchus

Just saw it last night, Loved every second of it.
When I wasn't laughing, I was enjoying the gore. The fun never stopped.
No-one tried to explain the zombie virus or come up with a convoluted plan to stop the zombies. It was simply survival. The arsehole character with the boat, can't remember his name, was brilliant and had some great one-liners.
Loved the zombies. They looked great - stupid, fast and hungry.

Btw, watch the clips during the closing credits, it shows what happened afterwards and is probably the funniest and best part of the movie.

All in all, a fun movie well worth the watch.

lodgepole

Originally posted by Bacchus
Btw, watch the clips during the closing credits, it shows what happened afterwards and is probably the funniest and best part of the movie.

I thought that was the worst part of the film. You really didn't need to know what happened to them...

TCamen

You really didn't need to know what happened to them...

I enjoyed seeing what happened to them cos:

I wasn't pleased with the seemingly happy ending of them sailing off into the sunrise. I wanted an ending to reflect the tone of the movie. I think the rotten food/no water/no petrol depressing reality of them out at sea with nothing was really good.
The bit on the island was satisfyingly dark. The red haired girl needed to die, if nothing else!